IPv6 Confusion

Zaid Ali zaid at zaidali.com
Wed Feb 18 04:40:39 UTC 2009

>You are arguing that ISPs should make changes  
>without any obvious mechanism to guarantee some return on the  
>investment necessary to pay for those changes.

Nail on the head and the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Japan gave tax incentives which helped their ISP's to move to IPv6. Find a lazy lobbyist who can educate a senator to say that there will be no more tubes left on the internet and slide a tax incentive into the next stimulus package :)


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
To: "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:18:33 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion 

On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In otherwords ISP's need to enter the 21st century.

Yeah, those stupid, lazy, ISPs.  I'm sure they're just sitting around  
every day, kicking back, eating Bon Bons(tm), and thinking of all the  
new and interesting ways they can burn the vast tracts of ill-gotten  
profits they're obviously rolling in.

Reality check: change in large scale production networks is hard and  
expensive. There needs to be a business case to justify making  
substantive changes.  You are arguing that ISPs should make changes  
without any obvious mechanism to guarantee some return on the  
investment necessary to pay for those changes.  This is a waste of time.

In general, NAT is paid for by the end user, not the network  
provider.  Migrating to IPv6 on the other hand is paid for entirely by  
the network provider.  Guess which is easier to make a business case  

Note that I'm not saying I like the current state of affairs, rather  
I'm suggesting that jumping up and down demanding ISPs change because  
you think they're stuck in the last century is unlikely to get you  
very far.  You want a concrete suggestion? Make configuring DDNS on  
BIND _vastly_ simpler, scalable to tens or hundreds of thousands of  
clients, and manageable by your average NOC staff.


More information about the NANOG mailing list